Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rwemeye ubujurire bwa Nteziryayo Damien, rusanga isaka ryakozwe nta ruhushya rw'Ubushinjacyaha ritemewe, bityo rutesha agaciro ibikomoka kuri ryo.
The court held that the search and seizure were lawful under Article 65 since the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, and that the quantity and circumstances of the drugs, along with corroborating witness testimony and the appellant's own admissions, justified conviction for drug trafficking and consumption. The appeal was dismissed and the lower court's sentence upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the issuance of search warrants by the Public Prosecution, rather than the judiciary, and the conduct of searches without a warrant in specified circumstances, do not violate the cited constitutional provisions. The Court found that Rwandan law provides adequate safeguards and judicial remedies for rights violations during searches, and that the challenged statutory language is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court also held that requests for statutory interpretation or amendment are outside its jurisdiction in a constitutional petition.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Murangwa Edward had standing to challenge provisions of Rwanda’s investigation and criminal procedure laws, and set the case to continue.
The challenged provisions of Law No. 12/2017 and Law No. 027/2019 are not inconsistent with Articles 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 43, and 61 of the Constitution. The Constitution allows the legislature to determine the procedures and authorities for searches and investigations. The law provides sufficient safeguards for the rights of persons subject to search, including judicial review and remedies. The terms 'reasonable grounds', 'substantial evidence', and 'serious grounds' are not so vague as to be unconstitutional, and their interpretation is not a matter for a constitutional petition. The request…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to search and seizure rules, holding that warrantless searches and prosecutorial warrants with safeguards were constitutional.
The Supreme Court upheld Rwanda’s search-and-seizure framework, finding that prosecution-issued warrants and certain warrantless searches were constitutional.
The Supreme Court held that Murangwa Edward has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the impugned statutory provisions because the laws in question apply to all persons in Rwanda, including the applicant, and may affect his fundamental rights. The Court reaffirmed that standing in constitutional litigation is interpreted broadly, and it is sufficient if the applicant is among those affected by the law, without the need to show actual harm. The Court also recognized standing for public interest litigation and for advocates acting in the interest of justice.
Source excerpt
Explore more
